subject:"\[Vo\]\:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs"

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-19 Thread Eric Walker

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Alain Sepeda 
wrote:

Someone in france, Gaspard Koenig support an interesting view on liberalism.
> the system should support autonomy, meaning that people should be secure
> enough to dare to behave autonomously and not to depend on anybody.
>

I like this line of thinking.

> real efficient behavior for the poor is not to share your wealth but allow
> them to produce it.
>

I think there's another intuition that is behind all of the focus on basic
income and economic inequality, at least in the US.  There's a general
feeling, perhaps even an assumption, that each person should have access to
the same opportunity, e.g., to make it big, to invent something new, to
write some famous novel, etc., even if they don't capitalize on that
opportunity.  So a child that grows up in a poor part of Brooklyn should
not be limited by that poverty and should be able to go on and do the kinds
of things that a person growing up in a prosperous part of northern
California might be able to do.

For Americans, at any rate, as long as the disparities are small enough to
turn a blind eye, which is something we're very good at, then we are able
to continue to believe that people have equal opportunity. But in a world
in which automation and other changes result in a massive centralization of
economic and political power, it is no longer possible to maintain this
self-understanding of equal access to opportunity.  So if things continue
in the present direction, people understand that the poor kid in Brooklyn
will have little practical chance of starting some important business,
etc., in the same way that we would be amazed if a kid living on the
streets of India went on to found a company like Apple.  It's possible, of
course, but highly unlikely.  A sense that things are heading in such a
direction might be leading to additional focus and reflection.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-19 Thread Alain Sepeda

2016-02-19 18:00 GMT+01:00 H LV :

> However, basic
> income 
> should be high enough so that paid work does not need to be incentivized
> by money. Paid work
>

Someone in france, Gaspard Koenig support an interesting view on liberalism.
the system should support autonomy, meaning that people should be secure
enough to dare to behave autonomously and not to depend on anybody.

the problem with basic income is that it should be paid anyway by someone
who is paid for his activity.

Basic income is good not because it shares, but because it allows people to
be free enough to dare to produce better, and thus to increase the total
value, or reduce the total required effort or resource .
This is the same reason why "social security" (health, retirement,
education saving/insurance) if good for economics (people feel safer thus
produce better, invest riskier and consume more)

real efficient behavior for the poor is not to share your wealth but allow
them to produce it.

economic growth and international commerce have done more for Chinese
extreme poverty, and even African poverty (just beginning, mostly by
Chinese immigrant influence - joke), than all charity programs.

best solution to save people from cataclysm is to make them richer

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-19 Thread Jed Rothwell

H LV  wrote:

> A similar judgement can be made about slavery: it is bad for the economy
> because it is inefficient.
>

Yes. That was true even in the 19th century, which is one the reasons the
U.S. north was wealthier than the south. Coerced labor is inherently
inefficient.

Nowadays, even enthusiastic slave labor could not compete. For example,
even when people volunteer and work enthusiastically for free, they cannot
bake goods as cheaply as machinery can.

> However, the rich do not want to be viewed as selfish, so
> paid work must be portrayed as morally superior to any other
> notion
>  of work.
> 
>

Let us be careful not to generalize about rich people. There are all kinds.
There are Democratic ones in Republican ones, although they do tend to
gravitate to the Republican Party. What I hope is that most rich people
will be pragmatic. Even the amoral ones mainly want more money. They do not
care what happens to other people, but they don't wish them harm. I hope
that we can convince the wealthy class that a guaranteed income will
increase overall wealth and give them more business opportunities. In that
case they will support it.

People can change their minds quickly about social policy. I was surprised
to see how quickly support for same-sex marriage spread through the U.S.
Here in Georgia, some conservatives are still fighting it, but it has
support from corporations such as Coca-Cola that do not want to rock the
boat. Mainly, they want to sell soft drinks to gay people, I assume. I can
well imagine that Coca-Cola would be thrilled to see a moderate guaranteed
income, given the mass market they serve.

Frankly, I do not see why you would care that other people are getting a
guaranteed income as long as you yourself are doing well. Money is not a
zero-sum resource. Why should anyone care whether other people work as long
as you get the goods and services you want? Back when we needed people to
do all jobs it made sense to get angry at people who shirked. When I go to
the Post Office and see people loafing around not working, it upsets me
because I am standing in line, and because I want them to deliver my mail
quickly. When I send an email, machines do all the work. There are no human
workers involved. No one shirks.

Suppose I go to a hardware store to buy a gadget. The employees are
standing around talking instead of helping me. That bothers me. So I go to
Amazon.com and buy the gadget instead. I eliminate human interaction. Yeah,
that's cold. It is unfeeling. It reduces overall employment. But I just
want the gadget. I am not there to make a social statement.

(Actually, the people at Lowe's are friendly & helpful. But the other day
they did not have a plastic toilet paper rod of the right size, so I got it
on Amazon instead. Question: why are there two different standards for
toilet paper rods?!)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-19 Thread H LV

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:18 AM, Alain Sepeda 
wrote:

>
>
> the good way to judge policy is not through morality, but through
> incentive network.
>
>
>>
A similar judgement can be made about slavery: it is bad for the economy
because it is inefficient.
The argument sounds good, but slave owners are more concerned about their
personal loss of status
in the new order. On the other hand they don't want to be viewed as
selfish, so they make arguments
about the moral inferiority of black people.

Making sure basic income remains low enough to incentivise paid work is
about reassuring the rich they can still
have broad social control over those on the basic income. However, the rich
do not want to be viewed as selfish, so
paid work must be portrayed as morally superior to any other
notion
 of work.

(For example being in school is not considered work. It
 is only considered preparation for work. No wonder why
so many young people hate school.)

However, basic
income 
should be high enough so that paid work does not need to be incentivized by
money. Paid work
occurs in the marketplace according the values of the marketplace. A desire
to work in the marketplace should
be incentive enough. The extra income one receives is just a pleasant side
effect of working in the marketplace.
It should not be the rai·son d'ê·tre
for 
participati
on
in the marketplace.

Harry

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-19 Thread Jed Rothwell

Alain Sepeda  wrote:

if you have an income that is not removed if you work and get paid,
> whatever it is, then you have no incentive not to work, and much incentive
> to work, even for cheap, but never if it is not productive.
>

That is true, and important. Many wealthy people work hard even though they
do not need the money, but they seldom do useless busy-work. Except for
playing golf.

> if you subsidize obsolete industry, or industry done by less trained
> people in poorer countries, you multiply obsolete industry, deter modern
> industry, deter trained workers in rich countries, and promote low
> competence workers in rich countries . . .
>

Good point.

> people always forget that conditional subsidizes is a punishing tax on not
> deserving the subsidies.
>

Well, for people who don't get the subsidies. "Deserving" is not the issue.
The U.S. tax system subsidizes home owners. That is unfair to people who
rent apartments and houses.

In other words, for every economic action there is an equal and opposite
reaction. That is not the so-called "law of unintended consequences." In
most cases we see the consequences, including deleterious ones, but we
decide it is worth the cost.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-19 Thread Alain Sepeda

to explain more simply the interest of UNCONDITIONAL basic income.

if you have an income that is not removed if you work and get paid,
whatever it is, then you have no incentive not to work, and much incentive
to work, even for cheap, but never if it is not productive.
In this way basic income, unlike charity, promote work, but not absurd
work, only productive work.
This answer the catholic fear that people get lasy.
People are mostly rational, for local decision.

take from another perspective, if you subsidize poor, you multiply poor,
and reduce rich.
if you subsidized unemployed, you multiply unemployed, and deter workers,
in a relative way (you motivate less).

if you subsidize obsolete industry, or industry done by less trained people
in poorer countries, you multiply obsolete industry, deter modern industry,
deter trained workers in rich countries, and promote low competence workers
in rich countries, while detering induistry in place where it is the
cheapest and people are not trained enough...

the good way to judge policy is not through morality, but through incentive
network.

this way of analysing situation is valuable too for cold fusion, as it
clear explains the groupthink that emerged rationally around LENR evidences.

there was big subsidize for hotfusion, that were bigger because it was more
expensive. matching subsidies with cost motivate people to propose higher
costs. this is why you should not subsidize relative to the cost (the need
of the poor, the need of big science), but fixed, unconditional, or at best
to the opportunities.

science is also subsidized if consensual, and if you integarte that
publishing an article have much value for a scientist, then peer review
process, and high impact journal decide of a network of subsidies.
Current peer review by consensu tha promote high impact journal promote
that money get to money, I mean citation index goes to citation index.

people always forget that conditional subsidizes is a punishing tax on not
deserving the subsidies.



2016-02-18 20:12 GMT+01:00 H LV :

>
> from
>
>
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/welfare/2016/02/how-i-learnt-stop-worrying-and-love-basic-income
>
> 
> How I learnt to stop worrying and love Basic Income
>
> John McDonnell's decision to consider moving to the benefit is the right
> one, says Jonathan Reynolds.
>
> The 
> first time Basic Income was pitched to me I have to admit I thought it
> sounded completely unrealistic. An unconditional payment to each
> individual, to support their full lives, whether working, studying, caring
> or being cared for? I remember sitting in Stalybridge Labour Club with a
> beer after a meeting, when my friend Gordon introduced me to the concept.
> “How else,” asked Gordon, “will we ensure sufficient support for people as
> they have to retrain throughout their working lives - not just for several
> different jobs, but for several different careers?”.
>
> Gordon’s question is the right one, and it stuck with me. My outlook on
> politics is fundamentally shaped by my experience of growing up in the
> North East in the 1980s. The closure of entire industries, like coal and
> shipbuilding, had dramatic and fundamental consequences for the areas built
> around them. The same is true of the tragic situation in the steel industry
> today. I still believe the Thatcher Government’s abject response to
> deindustrialisation lies at the heart of many of the problems the UK faces
> today, such as low skills, worklessness, poor public health and so on. The
> UK spent a fraction of what a country like Sweden spent on education and
> retraining as traditional industries declined, and we have suffered the
> consequences.
>
> But what should the left’s response be to this sort of seismic economic
> change? The traditional response, calling for the nationalisation of
> failing industries, doesn’t solve the problem. Running an industry at a
> loss because it is subsidised by the taxpayer is not a long-term answer.
> Globalisation means it was inevitable that the UK would have to exit some
> traditional industries – I wouldn’t fancy bringing back the cotton mills to
> Stalybridge, for instance – and education and retraining to take part in
> new economic opportunities is the only solution.  But as technology and the
> growth of the MINT countries brings ever more economic disruption, as well
> as opportunity, we must have a mechanism to provide people with both
> security and a platform from which to be able to access these new
> opportunities.  Basic Income would do just that. This is the first of my
> three justifications for backing it – as a policy to cope with inevitable
> but fundamental economic change.
>
> The second justification concerns our existing welfare state.  I have
> always been taken aback by the bewildering complexity of our welfare
> system. The Child Poverty Action Group Benefits Handbook, which like many
> MPs I use to help constituents, is

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-18 Thread H LV

from

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/welfare/2016/02/how-i-learnt-stop-worrying-and-love-basic-income

How I learnt to stop worrying and love Basic Income

John McDonnell's decision to consider moving to the benefit is the right
one, says Jonathan Reynolds.

The
first time Basic Income was pitched to me I have to admit I thought it
sounded completely unrealistic. An unconditional payment to each
individual, to support their full lives, whether working, studying, caring
or being cared for? I remember sitting in Stalybridge Labour Club with a
beer after a meeting, when my friend Gordon introduced me to the concept.
“How else,” asked Gordon, “will we ensure sufficient support for people as
they have to retrain throughout their working lives - not just for several
different jobs, but for several different careers?”.

Gordon’s question is the right one, and it stuck with me. My outlook on
politics is fundamentally shaped by my experience of growing up in the
North East in the 1980s. The closure of entire industries, like coal and
shipbuilding, had dramatic and fundamental consequences for the areas built
around them. The same is true of the tragic situation in the steel industry
today. I still believe the Thatcher Government’s abject response to
deindustrialisation lies at the heart of many of the problems the UK faces
today, such as low skills, worklessness, poor public health and so on. The
UK spent a fraction of what a country like Sweden spent on education and
retraining as traditional industries declined, and we have suffered the
consequences.

But what should the left’s response be to this sort of seismic economic
change? The traditional response, calling for the nationalisation of
failing industries, doesn’t solve the problem. Running an industry at a
loss because it is subsidised by the taxpayer is not a long-term answer.
Globalisation means it was inevitable that the UK would have to exit some
traditional industries – I wouldn’t fancy bringing back the cotton mills to
Stalybridge, for instance – and education and retraining to take part in
new economic opportunities is the only solution. But as technology and the
growth of the MINT countries brings ever more economic disruption, as well
as opportunity, we must have a mechanism to provide people with both
security and a platform from which to be able to access these new
opportunities. Basic Income would do just that. This is the first of my
three justifications for backing it – as a policy to cope with inevitable
but fundamental economic change.

The second justification concerns our existing welfare state. I have
always been taken aback by the bewildering complexity of our welfare
system. The Child Poverty Action Group Benefits Handbook, which like many
MPs I use to help constituents, is bigger than my copy of the Bible. The
modern evolution of the welfare state – conditionality, sanctions, and
adults being forced to fill in job search diaries as if they were in
primary school – I find unconscionable. I don’t deny there are a small
group of people who do need a kick up the arse. There are also people who
definitely need to access some support to get back into work, especially
with numeracy and literacy. But why should this be punitive? A system
which sanctions war veterans for selling poppies, or a person for attending
job interview, is both ridiculous and counter-productive. And that’s
before we consider the fundamental problem of our current benefits system –
how to taper off benefits when someone does return to work to ensure there
is an incentive to work and not a “benefits trap”.

The Government’s answer is universal credit. Having been one of the
pathfinder areas for universal credit, I’m afraid they will be
disappointed. Thanks to George Osborne, universal credit will not now offer
the kind of work incentives it was hoped it would, but the real problem is
that it still cannot cope with the real nature of people’s working lives.
There is not, as much as some Tory MPs would claim there is, a big group of
people who never work and then a larger group who pay their taxes to
support these people. Instead, many people move frequently into and out of
work, because the work they can get is short-term, or insecure, or because
the other responsibilities in their lives cause complications. The benefits
system simply cannot cope with these people, and nothing I have seen
suggests universal credit will be a solution to that. As an example, not
only is universal credit designed to be paid four weeks after a claim is
made (on the huge assumption that everyone is paid monthly in arrears and
so will have four weeks wages to tide them over), if a claim for universal
credit is made too early, and the claimant receives their final pay packet
after lodging the claim, they can wait as much as 11 weeks before receiving
a penny. It is not surprise that foodbanks are booming. There are also
huge questions regarding conditionality as the nature of

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-17 Thread a.ashfield

Jed,”.. In the past, education helped because automation and robots 
usually replaced unskilled labor.”


I agree it helped in the past, but currently a degree is mainly used by 
personnel departments as a measure of your conformity and is little more 
that what a high school diploma used to be.Technically illiterate, they 
are incapable of interviewing people to detect if they have real talent.


You left out the important proviso, if there ARE jobs to fill.I’m not 
sure that replacing unskilled labor will be the front runner for 
long.That requires investing in expensive hardware.Highly paid 
professionals are a much juicier target and software spread over many 
thousands is relatively cheap.Already a lot of what you read in the 
media is written by AI.Many labor intensive parts of legal work has 
started to be done by AI.Someone mentioned auto scanning of X-Ray 
images.A TED talk by a lady doctor demonstrated how much better the 
results were for diagnosing breast cancer.Etc Etc.


Although I know it to be true I have trouble accepting just how fast 
this change is and will occur.Kurzweil opened my eyes to what the future 
holds for nano machines and how things will change when they become self 
replicating.He talks about nanobots in the blood that can fix problems 
in your brain and attack cancer for example.The only thing I’m sure of 
is how difficult it is to forecast just what will happen and that our 
politicians won’t be ahead of the curve.


I haven't thought much about the working week.  Perhaps there is some 
compromise for two people sharing a job providing they are paid enough.  
The latter is the basic problem that remains unaddressed..

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-17 Thread Alain Sepeda

2016-02-17 16:35 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :

> In the past, education helped because automation and robots usually
> replaced unskilled labor. I think for the next few decades they will
> continue to replace unskilled labor more quickly than skilled or
> intellectual labor. For example, self driving cars will replace taxi
> drivers.


Very interesting notice.

with intelligent bots and AI replacing office workers what you don't need
is not more educated people, because bots can be educated too .

what we need is what I see glorified those days : entrepreneur spirit,
pioneer spirit, disruptive ideas

you cannot be smarter than a computer their way, but you can exploit them
to work for you.

future of "activity" maybe "invention of problems", assembling services,
assembling or identifying demands and needs, ...

note that if bots replace really all work, then why have money, since money
is to buy work ?
if machine can be build without money, why give a price to machine capital ?
If design can be done by machine, why would it be expensive ?

I don't beleive things will be free, but just cheaper like it happen for
food, computers, energy, ...

if really all we know today is automatised, even surgery, psychologist,
except maybe few planet-scale experts in AI then :

- what would the genious experts ask to the society tha bots will not
propose ... name that NEW SERVICE, "NS".
- then NS will be proposed by non robots who are not "experts"... they will
thus be paid by experts who will be paid for their work, that they will
obtaine from a tax on all goods. thus goods will have  price.
- people gaining money for NS, will use part of their money to pay for NS,
and for goods... but most will be for NS.
- ther will be more people offering NS to people fworking for NS
- people not working for NS will need money , not muc, to provide NS if not
toexperts but to first or second level of NS providers...

OK I stop what I describe is just an economy...

NS will be all human service that people value and that robots cannot
provide.

it is human interaction, if bots do all else.
it may also be manual made goods, considered as luxury.
it may be cultural goods, ethnic tradiction goods, and services (shox, art)
it may be talking, sex, care, advices, even if bots can give you all of
that for cheaper...
don't forget that people  were using most of their time and money just for
food... now many have gadgets, and many use tourism of leisure services.

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-17 Thread Lennart Thornros

Hello Ludwik,
No, communism was old already when introduced in Russia (even older in
Poland). However, if we stay with that side of the communism that deals
with distribution of basic needs it has it points. The problem is that it
decides that one group has too little and that that has to be justified
with all and any means. This is a different situation today and the
argument has very little traction.
I believe that one need to have a way to distribute basic needs not only
within a country but globally. Otherwise there is no way of dealing with
the future robot society. You  cannot have people in a third world country
working 70 / 80  hours per week and just get the basics if people three
hours away can work 8 hours a week for the same reward. As the world has
better communications the differences will decrease. I do not think that
such borders will survive.
I think Eric is righ;t robots will only be able/allowed to handle so much.
There will be a need for change of attitudes and valued will be based
differently. I know that people (in general), of working class 125 to 150
years ago had no ambitions to develop their personality or travel for
educational reasons. They had their day cut out trying to survive. During
this period since then we have already made great progress to offer
everyone the basic needs in the west. This development is under way at a
much higher speed in all other countries today. I predict one can live with
similar security and promise of basic needs almost anywhere in the world
within 25 years. It is possible that the direct connection between
producing and reward will to some extent survive this period. However, if
the requirement for being productive is very low, like 8 hours per week,
then this direct relation will have to change. I hope to the better.
Once again I agree with Eric that there is a big risk that the transition
will be difficult. LENR would certainly help that transition. Disturbing to
me is that even here in the west, we cannot focus on adopting the new
technologies. We are still worried over that jobs are moving to China and
India. That is instead of building new infrastructure that utilize the new
possibilities. We still think that GM and similar giant organizations will
be in the lead. We even save them when they fail because they have outlived
there usefulness. We are afraid of the change!
China and India will not stay long as the low cost labor resource. Robots
and even less fortunate areas in the world will become the future cheap
labor resource. Don't you think a Chinese will ask for the same privileges
as a US or a German citizen? Of course they will.
I could add something about, smaller and more flexible organizations all
over the field, but  . . . :)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> About education -- in a future in which the economic difficulties being
> discussed are worked out to some extent, there will be a lot of free time.
> Furthering one's education seems like a good way to spend some of this
> time.  I suspect that education will change significantly in the next 200
> years, which is not to suggest that it will be unrecognizable. But if there
> is less pressure to get a job in order to survive and prosper, there may be
> less pressure to obtain a bachelor's degree, in contrast to getting
> specific certifications, which could potentially undercut the current
> tuition inflation.
>
> About the replacement of jobs by robots -- this is obviously happening and
> will increasingly happen.  But I think the argument only goes so far.  Not
> all creative jobs carried out by people will be replaced by robotic labor
> (I don't think anyone is arguing the extreme version of this).  I doubt
> there will ever be a time when robotic art, or music, or essays, political
> analyses or high-end mandolins will ever rival the best work of humans.
> This is not to say that many jobs that are currently somewhat creative will
> not be replaced.
>
> To elaborate, consider that for the last 50-60 years people have been
> infatuated with fast food, which has a consistent taste and presentation
> wherever you buy it.  There has been a similar uniformity in homes,
> suburban neighborhoods, furniture and fruit and vegetables.  But in recent
> years there has been a general reassessment of these kinds of preferences,
> and people have become more willing to pay more for the hand-made and
> idiosyncratic stuff.  I see this trend increasing over time.  In addition,
> there are areas that people may naturally gravitate towards, such as
> gardening, which, although the work could be capably carried out by a
> sufficiently intelligent set of robots, people might want to do
> themselves.  The main point, then, is that in an economy in

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-17 Thread Eric Walker

About education -- in a future in which the economic difficulties being
discussed are worked out to some extent, there will be a lot of free time.
Furthering one's education seems like a good way to spend some of this
time.  I suspect that education will change significantly in the next 200
years, which is not to suggest that it will be unrecognizable. But if there
is less pressure to get a job in order to survive and prosper, there may be
less pressure to obtain a bachelor's degree, in contrast to getting
specific certifications, which could potentially undercut the current
tuition inflation.

About the replacement of jobs by robots -- this is obviously happening and
will increasingly happen.  But I think the argument only goes so far.  Not
all creative jobs carried out by people will be replaced by robotic labor
(I don't think anyone is arguing the extreme version of this).  I doubt
there will ever be a time when robotic art, or music, or essays, political
analyses or high-end mandolins will ever rival the best work of humans.
This is not to say that many jobs that are currently somewhat creative will
not be replaced.

To elaborate, consider that for the last 50-60 years people have been
infatuated with fast food, which has a consistent taste and presentation
wherever you buy it.  There has been a similar uniformity in homes,
suburban neighborhoods, furniture and fruit and vegetables.  But in recent
years there has been a general reassessment of these kinds of preferences,
and people have become more willing to pay more for the hand-made and
idiosyncratic stuff.  I see this trend increasing over time.  In addition,
there are areas that people may naturally gravitate towards, such as
gardening, which, although the work could be capably carried out by a
sufficiently intelligent set of robots, people might want to do
themselves.  The main point, then, is that in an economy in which scarcity
is not a motivating factor, people will not be forced to do undignified
work.

All of that is very bright and rosy. I am pessimistic that the transition
to such a future will be a smooth and pleasant one.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-17 Thread Axil Axil

One advancement is global data "accumulation and application". A
demetoligent or radiologist automaton will accumulate a global data base
which contains all the images of shin cancer or the  x-rays associated with
a given condition from all over the world over many decades. an AI will use
that data (billions of cases) to make a diagnosis. The diagnosis will be
far more accurate based on this data base than any experience that a human
can provide by many orders of magnitude.

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Ludwik Kowalski  wrote:
>
>
>> We believed that in the next economic system, Communism,  people will be
>> receiving goods "according to their needs, not according to their work.
>>
>
> In the distant future, hundreds of years from now, it is certain that
> things will work out this way, because there will be no need for any human
> labor, and because the technology for things like robots will be in the
> public domain and available to everyone at no cost. I mean that patents
> will have expired, and the technology will be so cheap with automatic
> replication machines that there will be no way to charge anyone for it.
> Cold fusion may be the first technology to reduce a major world-scale
> expense to zero, but others will surely follow.
>
> People will eventually have all the food they want for free, or nearly for
> free, from small automated farms. See:
>
> http://www.freightfarms.com/
>
> http://www.freightfarms.com/features/
>
> These may even be built into houses. You see them in some Japanese
> restaurants already. When you order a salad, the waitress cut the lettuce
> from a glass automated greenhouse next to you.
>
> Two hundred years from now, trying to charge the customer for the use of
> cold fusion or for a new robot would be like trying to charge a person
> nowadays for gathering sticks and making a bonfire, or trying to charge a
> person for gathering rocks on his own property and making a stone wall in
> Pennsylvania. Fire and simple stone construction techniques are millions of
> years old. No one controls them.
>
> In Pennsylvania, a skilled person can charge a lot of money to gather
> rocks and build a stone retaining wall in a barn. This takes a great deal
> of skill, special tools, mortar and so on. The rocks may come from the
> property owner's own land a few meters away, but you can still charge for
> the labor. However, in the distant future, a large robot will download the
> skills needed to do this, and it will do the job for free. There may still
> be some incidental expenses for mortar, specialized tools, a building
> permit and so on.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-17 Thread Jed Rothwell

Ludwik Kowalski  wrote:

> We believed that in the next economic system, Communism,  people will be
> receiving goods "according to their needs, not according to their work.
>

In the distant future, hundreds of years from now, it is certain that
things will work out this way, because there will be no need for any human
labor, and because the technology for things like robots will be in the
public domain and available to everyone at no cost. I mean that patents
will have expired, and the technology will be so cheap with automatic
replication machines that there will be no way to charge anyone for it.
Cold fusion may be the first technology to reduce a major world-scale
expense to zero, but others will surely follow.

People will eventually have all the food they want for free, or nearly for
free, from small automated farms. See:

http://www.freightfarms.com/

http://www.freightfarms.com/features/

These may even be built into houses. You see them in some Japanese
restaurants already. When you order a salad, the waitress cut the lettuce
from a glass automated greenhouse next to you.

Two hundred years from now, trying to charge the customer for the use of
cold fusion or for a new robot would be like trying to charge a person
nowadays for gathering sticks and making a bonfire, or trying to charge a
person for gathering rocks on his own property and making a stone wall in
Pennsylvania. Fire and simple stone construction techniques are millions of
years old. No one controls them.

In Pennsylvania, a skilled person can charge a lot of money to gather rocks
and build a stone retaining wall in a barn. This takes a great deal of
skill, special tools, mortar and so on. The rocks may come from the
property owner's own land a few meters away, but you can still charge for
the labor. However, in the distant future, a large robot will download the
skills needed to do this, and it will do the job for free. There may still
be some incidental expenses for mortar, specialized tools, a building
permit and so on.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-17 Thread Jed Rothwell

a.ashfield  wrote:

Please explain why more education will help when there aren't enough jobs.
> The estimates I see suggest there will only be one new job for every five
> that are lost.
>

In the past, education helped because automation and robots usually
replaced unskilled labor. I think for the next few decades they will
continue to replace unskilled labor more quickly than skilled or
intellectual labor. For example, self driving cars will replace taxi
drivers.

I do not think more education is an adequate response to the problem, but
it may help.

Up until the 1930s, in the U.S. we responded to automation by reducing the
work week from around 60 hours to 40 hours. The 2 day weekend became
common. It might help to reduce the work week to 4 days (32 hours), with a
3-day weekend, leaving salaries more or less where they are now. This would
spread around the remaining labor. Beyond that, there would be no point to
a 3-day work week. For most jobs, in order to stay proficient and stay on
top of events you have to go at least 4 days a week. In a job such as
programming, or piloting airplanes, you lose proficiency remarkably
quickly. (So the pilots tell me.) Even a 3-day weekend might have an
impact.

Nowadays many working poor people hold 2 or 3 jobs, working more than 40
hours a week, because they are not paid a living wage. This increases
unemployment.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-17 Thread a.ashfield

Please explain why more education will help when there aren't enough 
jobs.  The estimates I see suggest there will only be one new job for 
every five that are lost.
Yes, I agree and wrote about how robotics is moving up the ladder 
challenging more skilled jobs.  For example a fully automated hospital 
pharmacy in CA fills 10,000 prescriptions a day without the need of a 
pharmacist.
Until the educational system is reformed, it is very poor value for 
money and will likely just saddle the recipients with debt.

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-16 Thread Ludwik Kowalski

This thread reminds me of my communist youth (In the USSR and In Poland):

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html
We believed that in the next economic system, Communism,  people will be 
receiving goods "according to their needs, not according to their work.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

On Feb 16, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
> 
> What I don't see is any agreement of how to handle the inevitable rise in 
> unemployed.  The group-think politician's answer still appears to be "more 
> education".
> 
> Yes. Education is a good thing, and I guess it can help with this problem, 
> but it cannot solve it. Lately, several smart people have shown that robots 
> and computers are likely to replace many jobs that call for high educational 
> attainment. Automation used to reduce manual labor only. Then it eroded 
> clerical jobs and cashiers. Now is likely to reduce labor across the board.
> 
> This is either a problem or an opportunity, depending on how you look at it, 
> and how society chooses to respond.
> 
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-16 Thread Lennart Thornros

Jed you say:

'
This is either a problem or an opportunity, depending on how you look at
it, and how society chooses to respond.
'

Of course it is an opportunity. The only way to turn it into a problem is
to decide it is a problem.

What about this logic:
I assume transformation will take its time (decades).
If all our needs are taken care of by robots and LENR provides free energy
then there is only a distribution problem.
As the robots are so good they will quickly fix that also.
In my imagination people will be in charge of robots.(another assumption).
Then the robots will be instructed to distribute the basics in the right
quantities and the right time to the right place.
As I see it there are two areas we still need people for:
1. To instruct the robots.
2. To develop the robot technology (if nothing else because we cannot let
the robots develop robots and take over).
The more interesting thing is of course which opportunities will open up.
Sports (competition between people cannot be a robot thing)
Entertainment in most regards.
Philosophy.
Various ways explore things. Scientific experiment and the final LENR
solution.
Is the sun a liquid is for humans to find out.
Lots of opportunities I am sure the list is endless and I have only pointed
a few directions without much deep thinking - just taken a dig in one
corner an inch deep.
The reward system and how to distribute the luxuries  needs its solution
and it will be among those in charge of the robots in one function or the
other.
There is no need for 8 hour days. Maybe one can work a month a year. Then
go sailing for 11 months - would fit my idea of a good time.:)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> What I don't see is any agreement of how to handle the inevitable rise in
>> unemployed.  The group-think politician's answer still appears to be "more
>> education".
>
>
> Yes. Education is a good thing, and I guess it can help with this problem,
> but it cannot solve it. Lately, several smart people have shown that robots
> and computers are likely to replace many jobs that call for high
> educational attainment. Automation used to reduce manual labor only. Then
> it eroded clerical jobs and cashiers. Now is likely to reduce labor across
> the board.
>
> This is either a problem or an opportunity, depending on how you look at
> it, and how society chooses to respond.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-16 Thread Jed Rothwell

a.ashfield  wrote:

What I don't see is any agreement of how to handle the inevitable rise in
> unemployed.  The group-think politician's answer still appears to be "more
> education".

Yes. Education is a good thing, and I guess it can help with this problem,
but it cannot solve it. Lately, several smart people have shown that robots
and computers are likely to replace many jobs that call for high
educational attainment. Automation used to reduce manual labor only. Then
it eroded clerical jobs and cashiers. Now is likely to reduce labor across
the board.

This is either a problem or an opportunity, depending on how you look at
it, and how society chooses to respond.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-16 Thread Frank Znidarsic

Why are men larger than women?   Studies were done on primates.  A male gorilla 
is much larger than the female.  His testicles are tiny.  He beats the 
computation off.  He is monogamous and a polygamist.


Male and female chimps are about the same size.  Females mate with everyone.  
Their testicles are large.  Mlae chimps attempt to flood out the competition.


Humans are somewhere in between.  The males have mid sized testicles and are 
little large than females.  We are mostly monogamous.


Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-16 Thread Blaze Spinnaker

More education is the answer.  People people to go to school.

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:46 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Jed,
> While laws have been updated there are still holdouts.  Where I live near
> Philadelphia all house plumbing had to be made of copper. When a member of
> the council died <10 years ago, who happened to own a plumbing business,
> the building regulations were changed to allow plastic.
>
> Our house was built in the 1980s and at that time city water had not
> reached the area so we have a well.  The water happens to be fairly acidic
> and we have had three leaks so far.  The pipes do not seem to be being
> attacked but just small local flaws are.  I suspect there are other
> holdouts but it is gradually changing.
>
> The subject seems to have drifted from the original topic.  At least AI
> and robotics seem to have become a topic of conversation in the media.
> What I don't see is any agreement of how to handle the inevitable rise in
> unemployed.  The group-think politician's answer still appears to be "more
> education".
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-16 Thread a.ashfield


Jed,
While laws have been updated there are still holdouts.  Where I live 
near Philadelphia all house plumbing had to be made of copper. When a 
member of the council died <10 years ago, who happened to own a plumbing 
business, the building regulations were changed to allow plastic.


Our house was built in the 1980s and at that time city water had not 
reached the area so we have a well.  The water happens to be fairly 
acidic and we have had three leaks so far.  The pipes do not seem to be 
being attacked but just small local flaws are.  I suspect there are 
other holdouts but it is gradually changing.


The subject seems to have drifted from the original topic.  At least AI 
and robotics seem to have become a topic of conversation in the media.  
What I don't see is any agreement of how to handle the inevitable rise 
in unemployed.  The group-think politician's answer still appears to be 
"more education".

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-16 Thread H LV

A basic income will be nice for women because it will give them more
options, but it will have a profound effect on the male psyche. A basic
income for men will affirm that a man's life is just as valuable as a
woman's life. This will foster healthier relationships between men and
women.

harry

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com>
wrote:

> What a gang of pessimists!
>
> Yes, there will be well paid jobs in the future. However, that is not the
> immediate problem. We need to spread the resources so everybody is given a
> fair chance to a life with no lack of the essentials.
> It is only one way to do so. To make sure people less fortunate will
> receive there benefit with a feeling of entitlement. Us old guys with
> another upbringing will have a hard time accepting it. It still is required.
> Then we need to find a reward system for those that take responsibility
> and initiative to move our society forward. I think that will fall into
> place more or less by default once we accept this new reality and our
> attitude has changed.
>
> Seen away from meteor hits and other catastrophes - I am convinced we will
> move toward a better society. Perfect is still far away.
>
> The debate about feminism I refrain to comment on. I know on Venus things
> are different but as I never been there I cannot figure the difference.:)
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
>
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
>
> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But surely they cannot replace Vanna White
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 16, 2016 6:59 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs
>>
>>
>>
>> Frank Znidarsic <fznidar...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> The last good paying jobs remain in healthcare.  How long will that hold
>> up?
>>
>>
>>
>> Not long. When computers can drive cars better than people, and when they
>> can win at Jeopardy better than the world's experts, it is only a matter of
>> time before they take all remaining manual labor jobs.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-16 Thread Jed Rothwell

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

What a gang of pessimists!
>

My views are not pessimistic. I think that a future in which robots do all
the work and people do whatever they please would be good, not bad.
However, we need to adjust the economic system to allow for this.

> Yes, there will be well paid jobs in the future.
>

Why? How could there be? Do you think anyone would pay a person thousands
of dollars to do a job that a machine can do for a few dollars? This would
be like paying people to add up numbers on a sheet of paper when a $500
computer can add a billion numbers per second.

> However, that is not the immediate problem.
>

This is a problem right now, and it will grow far worse in the near future.

> We need to spread the resources so everybody is given a fair chance to a
> life with no lack of the essentials.
>

Yes. We need to de-couple these resources from human labor (jobs) because
labor is rapidly becoming worthless.

There is no point to having people work when machines can do the job
better, faster, and cheaper. There is no benefit to anyone having people
compete with computers. This is real life, not the ballad of John Henry.
Are you going to have people waste their lives doing pretend make-work that
everyone knows a $500 robot can do for free? That will not give anyone a
sense of fulfillment, or a purpose in life. You would only be telling
people they are worth less than a plastic box.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-16 Thread Frank Znidarsic

I have showed some of the picture from Western PA.  Most recently coal fired 
generation and govt. defense contractors also seem to be waning.  The county 
and the govt have imposed new taxes to avoid bankruptcy. A sewer project 
requires an investment of @$10,000 per home.  When they are done they block 
your cellar floor drain.   The result has been that houses are being abandoned 
within the City Limits.  It seems that one out of 5 houses is in a very bad 
state of disrepair.  Abandoned houses appear everywhere. 


I have a friend Gill.  He owns a small shoe store.  He seems to be in pursuit 
of the most expensive restaurants.  He wants to drag me along with him.  He 
invited me and my female companion out to dinner on Sunday.  I told my 
companion that I did not mind doing the Gill thing on Valentines day but that I 
don't want to follow his agenda.


We went out to eat in Somerset County, which is even poorer than Cambria 
county.  The place was clean and well lit.  We had one young female waitress.  
No table cloths, candles, no matradee, and no view.  We did have, however, a 
cloth napkin.  It was a medium sized place in a mall off of highway 31 near the 
turnpike.  The price for our meals was $39 /each.  It was bring you own bottle 
and there was an additional  $6 uncorking fee.  The meal did not include a 
salad, drink, or desert.  If you wanted a side salad it was $9 each.  I figured 
it would be a big meal and we skipped the $9 dinner salad.   The only thing big 
about the meal was the plate.  The meal looked like a small  island within the 
huge plate.  Gill said it was the best.  I did not know or care, we were still 
hungry.  We purchased a desert.  The bill with tip was over $100.


This is were I don't understand the new economy.  The place was full.  Every 
table was reserved with young people.  They all got additional appetizers  $18 
and a side salad $9.  Their bill would be $140 / couple.


Where to they work?  Where do they get the money to waist?  Why was not this 
restaurant out of business years ago?  I don't know!  Seven Spring Resort was 
about 20 miles away.  Could it be from that?


Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-16 Thread Lennart Thornros

What a gang of pessimists!

Yes, there will be well paid jobs in the future. However, that is not the
immediate problem. We need to spread the resources so everybody is given a
fair chance to a life with no lack of the essentials.
It is only one way to do so. To make sure people less fortunate will
receive there benefit with a feeling of entitlement. Us old guys with
another upbringing will have a hard time accepting it. It still is required.
Then we need to find a reward system for those that take responsibility and
initiative to move our society forward. I think that will fall into place
more or less by default once we accept this new reality and our attitude
has changed.

Seen away from meteor hits and other catastrophes - I am convinced we will
move toward a better society. Perfect is still far away.

The debate about feminism I refrain to comment on. I know on Venus things
are different but as I never been there I cannot figure the difference.:)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But surely they cannot replace Vanna White
>
>
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 16, 2016 6:59 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs
>
>
>
> Frank Znidarsic <fznidar...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> The last good paying jobs remain in healthcare.  How long will that hold
> up?
>
>
>
> Not long. When computers can drive cars better than people, and when they
> can win at Jeopardy better than the world's experts, it is only a matter of
> time before they take all remaining manual labor jobs.
>
>
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-16 Thread Russ George

But surely they cannot replace Vanna White

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 6:59 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

Frank Znidarsic <fznidar...@aol.com <mailto:fznidar...@aol.com> > wrote:

The last good paying jobs remain in healthcare.  How long will that hold up?

Not long. When computers can drive cars better than people, and when they can 
win at Jeopardy better than the world's experts, it is only a matter of time 
before they take all remaining manual labor jobs.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-16 Thread Jed Rothwell

Frank Znidarsic  wrote:

The last good paying jobs remain in healthcare.  How long will that hold up?


Not long. When computers can drive cars better than people, and when they
can win at Jeopardy better than the world's experts, it is only a matter of
time before they take all remaining manual labor jobs.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-16 Thread Frank Znidarsic

When I was in the 5th grade our teacher Mrs.Biggs stated that workers in the 
steel industry fought hard for a 40 hours work week.  When we grew up and 
worked at Bethlehem Steel we would only have to work 30 hours per week.  Robots 
would be doing some of the work for us.  It did not turn out that way.  There 
is no more industry in Johnstown.  Coal fired electrical generation now seems 
to be waning.  Bethlehem Steel is long gone.  Those that still do work work 
long hours in the service industry for low wages.  The last good paying jobs 
remain in healthcare.  How long will that hold up?


I took some pictures of the process in action and posted the on angelfire.  The 
hemorrhaging of jobs still continues today.



http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ParksJohnstown/dome.html




Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-15 Thread H LV

The media frames almost every worrying social measure in terms of people,
women or children.
Rarely do you hear the data just for men or boys. Two generation of
journalists have
lectured on how to think about society by feminist academia.

For example you hear about the glass ceiling but there is also glass floor
in the cellar. You will find more homeless men down there than women. Boys
and girls commit suicide at roughly equal rates as children but the rate
begins to diverge in the teen years. The average suicide rate for men is 3
to 4 times that of women, and it increases with age. I think it is at least
10 times higher for men over age 80. But of course these inequalities
reveal nothing significant about the status of men in society. And even if
they did, we first need to get more women into math.

Harry

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> John Berry  wrote:
>
>
>> Rather the fact that men have continued to be seen as more disposable is
>> in large part because of the focus of the rights women have, with a
>> simultaneous subjugation of men.
>>
>
> I see no sign of that in Japan or the U.S. On the contrary, in both
> countries more money is spent on medical problems that primarily affect
> men. Heart attacks in men are more often treated with intense care; women
> are told to go home. Traditionally, a Japanese family would feed and care
> for a boy more than a girl if they had to choose. In the 1930s they were
> sometimes forced to sell their daughters into sexual slavery. They would
> not do anything so harsh to a son. The law did not allow it, as far as I
> know. My 80-year-old widowed mother-in-law used to climb up on a steep roof
> to fix the tiles because, she said, "I wouldn't want my son to do such a
> dangerous thing."
>
> (Mind you, that drove my brother-in-law crazy. "For crying out loud DON'T
> DO THAT mom!!!" That was typical of the self abnegation of 20th century
> Japanese women. Passive-aggressive behavior was not invented by Jewish
> mamas.)
>
> Needless to say, there is zero sign that men are being subjugated in
> Japan. I don't see any sign of it in the U.S. either. It sounds like
> someone's overwrought imagination, or some nitwit who thinks taking out the
> garbage once in a while is being oppressed. Or like one of these Christian
> fundamentalists who thinks *he* is being oppressed because some guy wants
> to marry some other guy in another part of town.
>
> There is plenty of feminism these days in both counties.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

2016-02-15 Thread H LV

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
> You are using the naturalistic fallacy. It is like saying that because
>> child birth evolved to be risky, we shouldn't intervene with science . . .
>>
>
> I never said anything REMOTELY like that! That is absurd. I listed the
> reasons why some male occupations tend to be more dangerous than female
> occupations, at least in Europe and the U.S. (But not in India, for
> example, where elderly women weed the median in highways with cars whizzing
> by a meter away at 60 mph.)
>
>
Do you have statistics on male and females in India? Citing one example of
a woman working in a dangerous environment is just a rhetorical tactic to
take attention away from men's suffering.




> The reasons go back to history, tradition, the physical differences and
> body strength difference between men and women. They go back to what people
> are trained to do, and grow up doing. No one can just hop onto a small
> fishing boat and survive. You have to do that for years while growing up.
> Traditionally in Europe, only men did that. A women who has never done that
> -- or you or I having never done that -- is likely to be drowned the first
> day out.
>
>
 So it is a combination of "tradition" and "nature".  One is sexist and
the other is a naturalistic fallacy that men should be expected to take
greater risks with their lives just for money.





> There are also natural reasons basic to our primate nature, going back at
> least 13 million years. Every portrayal of warriors in ever culture on
> record always shows men. You can't just erase our biology. This did not
> begin in 1970 with the word "feminist." This is how most human societies
> have worked for millions of years.
>

I never said anything about erasing biology. I suspect men will always be
more likely to place themselves in dangers way but to place men at greater
harm then women simply for the sake of money is unjust. Money is a cultural
artifact it is not a big cat. There is nothing natural about risking ones
life money and men should have the freedom to say "no" to such risk taking.
Similarly the decision to have a baby is more than an evolutionary strategy
for reproducing a species. I am sure "family planning" began in prehistory
and that we stopped reproducing for the sake of reproducing a long time ago.



>
> My father grew up knowing how to handle small motor craft and sailboats,
> and how to fire up a triple expansion steam engine, like the one on the
> Titanic. Firing up was a tricky and dangerous thing to do! The sailors had
> to climb a scaffold and lubricate those engines while they were in motion,
> which was another dance with death. There will never be another generation
> of young people, men or women, who are capable of doing that. It is a lost
> art. There may be a few people who can do that but we will never again see
> thousands of them, enough to man all the freighters and troop transport
> ships of WWII. You can't just pick up such skills overnight. For that
> matter there will never be another generation of people who can write
> assembly language or Pascal code the way I can. Every generation masters
> one technology and loses another.
> 
> I
> t happens that for all of history down to the present day, men have always
> taken the lead in mastering the most dangerous occupations. One obvious
> reason is that such jobs payed better.
>
>
>

I am not judging your father's choices. He did what he thought was right
for him and his family at the time. However, today's generation of men and
boys are faced with vastly different set of cultural circumstances and
technological challenges.
Do you have any boys?





> Women also did incredibly dangerous things by our standards, not long ago.
> I mentioned the photo of the 6-foot-tall Japanese fishing woman working a
> windlass in 1949. I said "she was running as many risks as any male
> fisherman." If you don't see that, look carefully at the photo and think
> about what she is doing:
>
> 
> https://library.osu.edu/projects/bennett-in-japan/images/full/13/12.jpg
>
> The caption says: "The young woman on the left was nearly six feet tall!
> The elderly woman on the right is calling the chant to maintain the rhythm
> of movement."
>

There are 4 to 8 people turning the windlass, hauling a fishing boat out of
> the surf onto the sand. They are walking barefoot in the sand pushing heavy
> logs (handles). Think of what might happen if one or two of these people
> slips in the sand or accidentally lets go of a handle, or if a wave jerks
> the fishing boat back into the surf. The handles may whip back with enough
> force to bash a person's head in. There may be pawl to prevent that, but it
> can slip or break.
>
>
Yes, good on them. Lets cheer the women on. One more women dying
justifies ten more men dying.
 



> This may look carefree, pastoral and picturesque but no man or

73 matches

Mail list logo